THE

LIBERTARIAN

ENTERPRISE

Freedom to Abort: NO!

Among libertarians it is axiomatic that freedom does not empower
people to violate others' rights. To dispute this premise is to
effectively disavow the existence of freedom in any meaningful sense;
freedom at that point simply becomes a noble-sounding word used to say
might makes right.

Nevertheless, this flawed definition of freedom often intrudes in
libertarian discussions of abortion. This is in no small part
reinforced by many abortion opponents' reluctance to discuss the
freedom issue, preferring instead to argue that abortion should be
prohibited because it is immoral. Yet the immorality of an action does
not offer sufficient grounds to prohibit it by law. Abortion is to be
opposed not simply because it violates certain moral codes, but
because it constitutes an initiation of force. It is the deliberate
destruction of a pre-born child.

Pro-choice libertarians frequently reject the phrase "pre-born child"
as a contradiction in terms. Yet nothing comes into being at birth
that did not already exist. At conception, a being comes into
existence that is both alive and by definition a member of the human
species, with 46 chromosomes (plus or minus in cases of certain
genetic abnormalities such as Down's syndrome). This being is
genetically distinct from its mother, with an independent genetic code
and is growing and developing by virtue of its own direction. A pre-
born child is dependent on its mother, but is not a part of her and is
growing and developing in the direction of a mature human being,
unless that process is interrupted thereby ending the developing life
of that human being. Conception marks the beginning of the continuum
of each individual's development as a human being.

To avoid this inescapable biological reality, pro-choice advocates
raise questions about "fetal personhood." It is ironic that pro-
lifers are often criticized as having solely religious motivations for
their beliefs when the pro-choice side of the debate uses subjective
philosophical and theological criteria to negate objective biological
facts. From the perspective of embryology, the humanity of the being
in the womb is clear. It is pro-choicers who seem inordinately
concerned with such concepts as ensoulment.

Implicit in the arguments about fetal personhood is the idea that
human beings possess organisms rather than exist as organisms. We do
not occupy organisms; we are organisms. These arguments also assume
that non-persons somehow can become persons. Libertarian writer Edwin
Vieira notes, "If the change [from non-person to person] was
biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change
is not a change in essential nature." The controversy over late-term
abortions is especially illustrative, as beings are terminated by
these procedures at precisely the same stage of development as
prematurely born babies.

Recognizing the humanity of the pre-born is not the same as saying
"every sperm is sacred." Sperms and eggs are only parts of a human
being that contain human life; they will not grow and develop into a
more mature human organism, as the pre-born child will. The same is
true of somatic cells. Each of these may contain the DNA blueprint
for life, but they will not mature or develop into an individual human
being on their own. Bill Westmiller was never a sperm or a skin cell,
but he was an embryo. Somatic cells, like sperm and egg, can be used
to generate an embryonic human being but this does not make these
things part of the stages of development in the life of an individual
human organism.

This new human being is brought into existence by their actions of its
parents. Except in cases of rape, both parents consented behavior
that resulted in conception, even if conception was not intended. This
means that both parents have the obligation to support their children.
We recognize this right in insisting that parents protect and
financially support their born children. We do not call these aspects
of parenthood "slavery." The very same obligations to this human being
exist during the pregnancy, when the pre-born child has the right to
be inside of its mother's body.

This isn't to minimize the burdens unwanted pregnancy can impose, or
to ignore that this is an obligation of far greater magnitude than
will ever be expected of the father. But the fact remains that
conflict brought about by unwanted pregnancy is not a conflict of
rights unless brought about by non-consensual intercourse. The pre-
born child was put in harm's way not with its consent, but by the
consensual actions of both parents. If participation in a
reproductive act imposes an obligation, this obligation must exist
from the moment reproduction takes place.

This essay is only a brief beginning to discussing this complicated
issue. Libertarian writer Joseph Fulda summarizes my position well:
"It is not choice the abortion advocates desire, but the revocation of
choice and its natural consequences."

W. James Antle III is a senior writer for Enter Stage Right and
regular contributor to a number of other webzines.

Great deals on great computer hardwareTiger Direct!Now accepting PayPal

Great deals on great computer hardware -- Tiger Direct!

Help Support TLE -- buy stuff from our advertisers!

Next
to advance to the next article, or
Previous
to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 167, April 1, 2002.